Laugh all you want; I wouldn't want to take my chances with all those landmines lying around.

CountArtha true again

it's your achilles heel! oh or sole?

A caltrop might.

NonDeUn damn, better wear those plated sole sabaton

I tend to think that rather than misconception, it was originally a movie technique to make cheap armour that looked like something appropriate, while not overly weighing down the actors. Much in the same way that many movies use knitted "chain" armour. Perhaps the misconception came later on, reinforced by role playing games.

morallyambiguousnet it also comes from chinese armour as well or indian mughal armour, padded armour full of brass riivets known as coat of 1000 nails. the chinese armour was, like the gauntlets, initially lined with plates, but as they used guns, they kept the coats, but left out the plates just leaving the studs....

elgostine hey what self-respecting warrior would refuse himself some chrome?

Ragimund VonWallat Probably because the leather served to protect the iron plates from the elements and general wear and tear. The real reason it existed is because at the time metallurgical techniques hadn't advanced to the point that they could make large even pieces of shaped steel.

imperialus11 Having the ability to do something doesn't speak to the economy of doing a thing. Making a bunch of small plates and then riveting them onto a jack is far less costly and time consuming than making formed, tempered plate armour. When you need to equip a few hundred or thousand fighters, economy definitely plays into it.

BAH! Bollocks! The Dwemer would never make something so pointless and impractical! AND HIDEOUS! >x/

Skyrim Lies in Norway, NOT Sweden...You take A12 Just north of Oslo, and theres Windhelm!

Carolingians are dwarves confirmed.

Unmodded dwemer stuff maybe? :D

Anders Hoegild Well the Dwemer had cities all over cyrro.... i mean Westero...... i mean the world.

brigandine would be heavy armour though

@@Liam_The_Great Not in like, Final Fantasy.

@@Liam_The_Great Brigandine is not an armour in core AD&D 2nd Edition core rules which is what Baldur's Gate is based on. So the translators are picking a term not otherwise in the game. (Brigandine almost certainly appears in some obscure supplement).

@@darthkek1953 Well luckily studded leather doesn’t exist so shush

@@charlottewalnut3118 Studded leather most certainly exist. I know studs in leather whose leather is studded. It's not setting/period-accurate fantasy/medieval armour though. I do admit that. But you could do a Called Shot to the gaps in the armour: neck, arm-pits, crotch, etc.

That's exactly how I think they must have fought - it's the only way it makes sense. Then again, there are older, crusader-era full-face helmets that don't have a visor - I imagine melee fighting in those was a bitch...

lalucre1803 But then why was there no nose- or cheek-protection underneath, to leave the face not completely unprotected? There'd certainly be the room for it, at least with the displayed helmet... Zombigotron You're refering to those pot-like great-helmets? Well, they do have a tendency to look oddly oversized. What if they wore a different helmet underneath and simply threw off the great-helmet once they made it to melee range?

MadnerKami Yes, that's what I was referring. I thought about that, but it just sounds so silly to do so...

MadnerKami I do not have the answers to your question. ;) I do think, however, that this theory is sound. Visibility and awareness, i guess, is more immportant than a visor in close combat. Having a protected face, but not knowing what your opponent is doing, will get you killed for sure.

I'm wondering if this was analogous to tank warfare, where there's long been the question of whether the vehicle commander should remain safely buttoned up or be out of the hatch for situational awareness. I'm not sure how much better current armour might be, but through the 20th century the consensus seemed to be that an exposed commander made the vehicle much more effective, though obviously with a degree of personal risk.

So.......... Brigandine?

There needs to be something to give the piece structure and rigidity, else it's just floppy like clothes. But you're right, nobody's going to see it so it needn't be steel plates. plastic would probably work just fine.

Doesn’t sound right

​@@sergarlantyrell7847 Maybe they should have some plastic or aluminum plates to make it look the part while being light for the actor and less expensive for the studio.

@@conn0rized292 the difficulty is mostly getting the material covering the right shape to look like it's containing armour plates. Honestly though, once they develop the material pattern for 1, they could just copy it and trim it down to fit better.

Will nonya anyone found if someone was selling them?

Darkwood has a pair of them. I know a few other people make them, but this design in particular seems to have an issue with people getting fingers broken in them.

How would you rate its stopping power?

KaletheQuick Styrofoam is where it's at.

DerOrk it stopped my sergeant dead in his tracks.

'Tis' but a flesh wound!'

KaletheQuick That's coooooooooooooooooooooooold.

trollforge Have you seen "Robin Hood - Men in Tights?" :-]

Iron Pirate Hahaha, that part was great!

Iron Pirate kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ntB1ZdapqLfDook.html" I accept!"

Oy Dave! *slaps Dave with a gauntlet, knocking half his teeth out* I challenge you to a du-el!!

They are fairly heavy... for a glove, definitely feel like you could knock someone's teeth out.

"And the Lord spake, saying, First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four, shalt thou not count, neither count thou two excepting that thou proceed to three. Five is right out, once the number 3, being the third number be reached, then lobbist thou holy hand grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight shall snuff it. Amen"

Karolingians were posers... :) Charlemagne the pimp!

Nazdreg1 for a poser to be crowned augustus of the west...must be the most overacheiver in the history of poser

True that, it is quite doubtful that a strong loyal army stands behind a wnnabe (which was the instrument to put pressure on the pope (not as a threatening but rather protecting force though)).

danehb89 Nazdreg1 Ragimund VonWallat In case you guys missed it, that was a RELIQUARY. It was a crown to put on the relics of Elisabeth of Schonau. It symbolizes the crowns one receives when in heaven (such as , a crown of martyrdom, a crown of chastity) it was never worn by anyone living. Nothing to show off, it is a piece of reverence to go with the holy relics.

So relics are not for showing off right? I mean why are they all so nicely and artfully stored and why is it important that everyone can see them? If relics are purely out of reverence they could be stored modestly out of public attention and you go there everyday to pray. This is reverence. The other thing is showing off reverence which was a cool trait back in those days. Let me compare it to modern times. You are a big fan of a certain celebrity and try to get a signed poster of him/her or whatever. Why the signing? And why do you hang it at the most prominent spot at home? Out of respect? No. You do it because you can show it to other people and be proud of it and of course also to invite other people to respect the celebrity as well. Same thing with relics.

And now I have the strange urge to play some DF.

_craftscarolingianship_ omg

Best comment ever

This guy rimworlds.

Dwarf Fortress!

I've been wondering about doing a video on studded leather for years. There are a few types of real armour that might be mistaken for it, but beyond that it would be just five minutes of a man saying 'It didn't exist and is a daft idea'. One day, perhaps.

Lindybeige Even as a layman, as I looked up what studded leather is I was like: "How does this help?". What would you recommend as a replacement in D&D (aside wood armor :P)?

Maybe not just studded then, perhaps a general video on armor misconceptions (I know you already have a few). I can't tell you how many people seem to think that armor such as in the Elder Scrolls V is actually practical (oh, yes, I'm not even joking.).

Nicholas Musser Compared to some fantasy armors it probably is because at least you could actually wear it.

DivineChronometer True, but I HATE how the modern games do lazy armour animation. If you look closely, they've just replaced the torso model with the armour model, without even bothering to re-rig it. This is fine for leathers or hides- even okay for mailles. But it makes the plate armours flex and bend as though they were skin-tight. There's no hang or rigidity to it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wear the scale mail or the half plate lol. become a beefy ranger

Roger Sy Receive penalties to dual wielding AND lose move silently bonus? Never!

U dont need stealth haha all u need is to be a semi less effective tank

Roger Sy ha!

Go with mirthral breast plate. Expensive, but worth it. Only a -1 armour check penalty.

probably Rambo like stuff.

+blackkakari TV shows?

+blackkakari CURVE THE BULLET! haha

Wow, I've never thought of that

+blackkakari COD, Battlefield, etc.

Don't forget that all these helmets he's worn so far were generic items, and weren't fitted to his particular head. If someone could afford such a helmet, they could probably also afford a couple hours at the local blacksmith to fit it to his head. That wouldn't eliminate the inherent limitations of the helmet, but should at least solve the problem of "vision ports are too far from eye".

I'd rather say that Lloyd is being overly picky. I wore several helmets and while they do impede your vision and hearing, you're getting adapted to that quite easily if instead of whining you just practice with it a little bit.

インフィニチキウィ First helmet I used (borrowed it off a friend for HEMA) was a great helm with _terrible_ vision, but I just got used to it. I don't actually mind having a narrow field of vision, but I suppose being in a battle with many people would be very different to a one-on-one duel.

I must say I agree with the other sentiments here, but it must also be pointed out that these large, fully-face-enclosing helms were, as I understand it, usually used only during the charge and the arrow-storm. Once a person had come into close combat, they would usually lift or even remove that pesky visor in order to fight more freely. In the case of the great helm, I have heard of people taking it off in close combat and relying on the mail and cap or bassinet they wore underneath. At least that is my understanding of it. I may yet be wrong.

Simon Whittle I think you're right there. If you have a look at several different helmets, including armets, pigface and Klappvisor bascinets (the type shown in the video) and possibly others, they have easily removable visors. Although, I do not believe they ever wore bascinets _under_ great helmets.

The modern-made Grettir gauntlet approximates the look of the Wisby type. A few of these were found in the burials, which were hasty, after that 1361 battle. These hurried burials are believed to represent genuine examples of 'coats of plates.'

jacob robertson exactly my conclusion

He was, did you not see the two pieces of cloth under the helmet?

he was wearing his coif

I had been thinking...the one sided nature of the holes is strange...

Edward Kiel well, considering that the majority of humans are and have always been right handed (and at many points in history lefties were thought to be evil because they were different) it would make sense to have increased armor on the left side, where the opposing right-handed attack would hit strongest and with the greatest frequency.

PsylomeAlpha Well, battles weren't fought in duels, and at any rate I don't know that battle-helmets historically were asymmetrical in this way. Not having breathing-holes on one side is a bit of a sacrifice, since keeping ventilated in battle would probably be important, and difficult enough even with holes in both sides. However the dangerous nature of jousting meant that making sacrifice like this would be acceptable, since each jousting would only last for a short time. Helmets made specifically for jousting were starting to get popular in the mid-14th century, and did indeed sacrifice ventilation and vision for protection, just look at the frog-mouth helms, which similarly would only allow a bit of breathing though the right side, and not the left. At any rate, what I'm trying to say is that this isn't a phenomenon that you'd see on helmets before the advent of jousting specific helmets.

Edward Kiel it could have been a tourney helmet that was designed to still be largely light and maneuverable enough for actual battle, could have been a looted helmet worn by someone who originally wore only a mail cowl, OR it could have been for flounder-man.

PsylomeAlpha My first thought was that this was the helmet of someone who, perhaps for financial reasons, only owned one helmet, which he propably had only had to use in tournaments until this battle. After all, as far as I understand Scandinavian history in this era, a knight couldn't nessecarily expect to take part in a battle at all in his lifetime.

A rounded stud would direct a blade towards the edge of the stud, just like the boss in the centre of viking age shields. The difference is that with a shield this works rather well, directing the blow to the edge of the shield where the force is dissipated better. With a stud on a piece of leather, it would only serve to guide the blade towards the leather, in which place you might as well have just not bothered with the studs at all. And that's all assuming that the studs are going to have a significant effect on the blade's trajectory at all. Going back to the shield, the boss is supported by a reasonably thick piece of wood. When the blade hits it the boss will stay put. However, the leather the stud is attached to wouldn't give it nearly as much support, and the stud would just be pushed out of the way by the blade.

Not to mention stab wounds, that would simply result in being stabbed in a slightly different location than the intended target area.

*cough cough* havel the rock *cough cough*

cough cough THE WALL cough cough

***** I agree, but I still think that one was too big. He was wearing an arming cap with it, and even then it was too wide to be comfortable.

Red Claw Right. It should offer coverage but I suppose an advantage of that helmet is visibility, so to have it too low over the eyes starts to degrade that advantage, especially considering the arming cap he had on already.

it wasn't used and if it was, it definitely wasn't common. probably because leather was expensive and doesn't make good armor

​@DrIvanRadosivic yeah that's why there are so many documented examples and evidence of leather armor. oh wait there aren't. ffs what is armor base even supposed to mean

@@hdiver3834 Armor base is a bullshit made by videogames to make armor more defeatable

You do know parchment is animal skin and not wood based like paper ? So who would use parchment over leather for armor, as parchment aren't tanned, thus less durable to wear and tear. Also parchment just return to a rawhide state if it get wet. As for aillette they are decorative add-on, thus why they could be made of parchment, easier to paint them.

Where did I say parchment wasn't animal hide? Sorry, but did you just need to show off that you knew that, or...? Just an overly aggressive pointing out of something where there wasn't a necessity. They were a precursor to pauldrons. Did you not read the part where I said examples for tournaments? Seeing as they weren't going for kills, they were purely decorative. The only reason *some* academics maintain they were only ever decorative is because there are references to them being *sometimes* made of parchment. Also, rawhide (which is just untreated skin, regardless of moisture) is pretty tough, especially when dried out... Which is why shields got faced with and rimmed with it. Zulu shields were just hide and stopped bullets. Also parchment is more flexible than leather. Which, given the placement of them, flexibility is a must, seeing as they cover you from neck to shoulder. But, in saying all that... Parchment still wasn't the go-to for actual combat. See the OP, where I said that.

Seriously, it's like you didn't read the post at all.

SerAlgernop BlitzKrieger Didn't mean it as an insult, but it was indeed intended to be aggressive, I was just pointing out it is animal hide as to bring in comparison to leather, but I admit, it is also due to a uncertainty of what that you actually knew what parchment is, as you considering wood decoration to be armor in the 13-14th century Europe, which is when ailettes were used for about one generation before the practice was abandoned, which fit the pattern of something that only a fashion. And they were not precursor to pauldrons, as that role go to spaulders and besagew, on top of pauldrons development requiring cuirass to first appear, by which point the practice of ailettes was already abandoned. Ailettes are flat most of the time, flexibility is of no importance. Of course in more decorative example they could be given a form, in which case parchment could be a very good choice, as you can easily give it very elaborated pattern as the varnish will take care of making it hold it.

Some say that aillettes were not armour at all, but for displaying heraldic insignia.

He is wearing one, it probably isn't thick enough though.

I shot one the same day, but when I watched the footage back, I didn't like it. It was a ten-minute ramble which had no spaces in it for me to get the scissors in. I plan to reshoot it one day.

I think the vendel helmet was designed to protect your eye sockets (from like, a sideways cut, and that's it). Nasal helms were around in the same period, so methinks the smiths in vendel territories were just experimenting.

Philip Dyer Also wit that kind of helm especially, a good fit is paramount. I know people who fight in that kind of visor in the SCA, IMCF, & whatnot and have no problem seeing well enough. Part if it is learned but a big part is getting the fit right. Plus the visor lock could have bee a strap, pressure lock, spring, etc However, yeah breathing in a helm can be a hell of a thing in full contact fighting.

Treat as "scale mail" or "laminar armour" or "lorica segmentata" or whatever your RPG calls it.

cygil1 Lamellar armor has nothing to do with scale armor, completely different way of assembly.

Legion McRae yep, uber metal!

Brigandine is better than chainmail. Brigandine and splint armor are usually combined with chainmail and gambeson or leather though (EDIT: Actually, I don't know if this true). Good for parrying deep impacts. Splint was what was shown in the video (riveted to a leather frontage; giving the 'studded leather' look, although less flexible piece-by-piece than actual studded leather - the upside being that splint actually protects you and is thus 'armor' rather than fashion accessory). I think the leather frontage of medieval armor is what confused Gary Gygax (or whoever) when he first wrote studded leather into D&D (first edition? the white box? whatever you nerds call it). Brigandine on the other hand, would have more of a cloth frontage and backing. The difference between brigandine and splint (reading wiki here), is that splint is more longitudal than brigandine. Brigandine is more square. Lamellar is connected more tightly together (I think). Then there's lorica segmentata (or banded armor), which curves across the surface it's protecting. Then there's scale armor, which is fish or leaf shaped scales that drape over the wearer's body. Then there's plated chain, which is plates attached directly over the chain, favoured in russia and persia (I think). Then there's actual plate armor that everyone thinks of, which is molded into a single shape (or a bunch of larger shapes) that specifically conform to different parts of the wearer's body. Such could be greaves, or lobster-tail gauntlets, or any old helmet (formed in a single piece; some helmets are formed from multiple pieces, I think), a visor, breast plate, back plate, etc. Each piece is given more unique shape than just a simple square or 'splint'. And then there's full plate, which is all those pieces of plate armor being connected together in a lot of places, with hinged and pivoting joints and what not, to allow for the best possible coverage. These are ALL forms of plate armor. Confused? :D

If your RPG has Brigandine this stuff is that. Brigandine armor was generally worn over a padded jack and mail. Brigandine is a step below plate armor. Ranking real late medieval armor. Padded Jack, Mail over Padded Jack, Brigandine over Mail and Padded Jack, Partial Plate which could include a Brigandine over Mail and a Jack, Full Plate. Brigandines provide almost as good of protection and a Cuirass but are somewhat flexible so more comfortable to wear they were also generally cheaper in the late Medieval period. You may have noticed I did not mention leather armor. The truth is, for the most part, leather armor is no more real than studded leather. There was boiled leather but that isn't supple like most people think of leather armor. It was hard stiff and quite heavy and not actually very common. Far more common and closer to what we think of as leather armor would be a padded jack with a leather outer layer.

The kettle hat you see does have a padded cap inside it. It would take a LOT of padding to make this enormous hat fit me. Possible, though.

Yes. It may be a one-size-fits-all thing made en masse by smiths for armies, like modern helmets that are adjustable.

I suppose that with lots more padding (I thought I saw some in there, but I wasn't sure, nor about the thickness), it might be a bit more uncomfortable during the summer sun.

Yeah, I read that people would just stuff straw into those things.

Yes, such questions of nurtured taste often come to mind. This mix of colours and lack of symmetry I think are factors.

Lindybeige It looks like a gold jewel encrusted wedding cake :/

Lindybeige No no no no, you got this all wrong! It's obviously ugly to ward off thieves.

I thought it looked awesome. Like a friggin' mountain of jewels and gold. Looks sorta like something from skyrim.

kimarous I don'T think it would be more subtle. If you were in a battle and your enemy seesthat you have leather gloves with a lot of rivets, they would certainly know that there are metal plates underneath it. After all, as Linybeige said, there was no such thing as studded leather gauntlets.

Sammy9262 well you "could" wear studded leather as a bluff. if the enemy sees a lot of rivets and assumes there are metal plates underneath then they will not bother striking their, even tho there may ore may not actually be metal plates underneath. BUT this is a really really stupid strategy

Sammy9262 I meant more from an aesthetic perspective, not a tactical one. Should have clarified that. I'm not expecting anyone to fall for a "ha ha, I was better protected all along" surprise.

kimarous One can think of situations where that would be well applied. Intimidation. Showing you have more plate armoured men than the opponent. Many a battle have been won this way, and to be precise, by proxy. When you have neutral or undecided parties that might partake in a war, using such tricks to convince them to join you/not join the opponent could be the decisive factor. While one would quickly notice if it were just leather and rivets due to the lacking stiffness, using wood or simmilar material instead of the metal base would provide genuiune looking armor. A good analogy would be fake planes/tanks used to fool satelite or spy drone surveilence.

I always wear ragged rags on top of my Heavenforged truesilver plate armor. I like the suprised look when their weapons shatter on impact with 'mere rags' :P

We've found welding gloves too thick and too stiff for sword handling. Better to outfit yourself with supple leather drovers' gloves, and if you want a gauntlet cuff, cut your own in matching leather and sew that to the cuff end of the drovers' glove.